Wednesday, 4 November 2015

Duped

Let’s take a closer look at Feedback’s way of dealing with
listener’s letters. Feedback’s raison d’etre is to give the listener a voice and Roger Bolton speaks on behalf of the listener, playing Devil’s advocate where necessary.

Craig’s piece included this transcript of one of Roger
Bolton’s questions during a remarkably gentle interview with Kevin Connolly:

“I mean, for example,
William Parry has been particularly critical of aTodayinterview that John Humphrys did with you. I think
John's first question was, "Yet another attack on Israelis", talking
about the knifing(sic) and so on. And that listener felt the very
way that was framed, mentioning Israelis first, concentrating on what was
happening tothem, in a relatively short interview inevitably
skewed the coverage. What do you think of that criticism?”

He refers to the complainant as “that listener” and gives us
his name. William Parry. Our friend Mr. Google says Mr. Parry happens to be not
just any old listener. He’s the author of an artfully compiled book of images
of Israel’s separation barrier aimed at people who campaign against Israel,
using slogans like: “Tear down that wall” and “Free, free Palestine – from the
river to the sea.” Etcetera.

The book must have a certain appeal, because it’s been
endorsed by Ghada Karmi, Ken Loach and Roger Waters. But why would the Feedback team bother to find that out,
(even though the BBC itself had formerly promoted the book) and, more to the
point, would it trouble them if they did?

One might try substituting the name of a high profile
anti-Israel campaigner or antisemitic political figure to test whether
Feedback would read out the complaint and describe the complainant as ‘a
listener’.

“I mean, for example, “OmarBarghouti” has written in. He has
been particularly critical of aTodayinterview that John Humphrys did with you.”

or

“A listener, Mr. Adolf Hitler has
contacted us. That listenerthought the way that was framed, mentioning the Israelis first,
concentrating on what was happening to them inevitably skewed the coverage. Etcetera.

Would that dent the audience’s belief that the complaint was
in any way valid? Would it be seen to represent a significant tranche of public
opinion?

Would you not ask yourself this: If
the BBC happens to be reporting “yet another knife attack on Israelis” should
not the BBC report that first? Use it as a headline, even?

If it was a fact.

If it happened.

Should the BBC not
tell us ‘what is happening to Israelis, or “them”, even when the “them” in question are Israelis? The complainant seems to think that’s wrong.
He thinks it skews the reporting. In his eyes reporting something first, i.e.,
prioritising it chronologically in a report automatically skews the report in
favour of the subject.

Having heard you posit that
theory, I might pocket it and save it for a rainy day. Thanks for bringing it
up by the way Roger, it might come in handy as evidence; it may harm your
defence if you fail to mention it later, when questioned. etc.

I say that because, as we
all know, straightforward chronology doesn’t normally influence the BBC’s
reporting when it comes to violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Not at
all. In fact the opposite is the case. The BBC customarily ignores chronology
or ‘as it happened’ reporting– notably in their reporting of the spate of
stabbings and driving cars into Israelis by Palestinians. The BBC habitually
starts by informing listeners of the death or the condition of the Palestinian
instigator of any given incident. This pattern of ‘front-loading’, which also
applies to headlines, occurs so frequently that it has a name. ‘First last’
reporting.

Might not this
“inevitably” skew anything much?

It’s ironic that a rare
deviation from this pattern causes that “listener” so much stress that he
decides to pen a complaint, send it off to Feedback, and enjoy Roger Bolton
reading it out on air.

“No,” he says, “we
mustn’t frame our reporting in a manner that concentrates on what is happening
(to Israelis) We demand that it is always framed in a manner that concentrates
on what is happening to the Palestinians.”

Don’t misunderstand this
complaint. Don’t file it under the category: ‘causing offence by mentioning
Israel in a non-derogatory fashion’ or ‘allowing Mark Regev’s face to appear on
the news because I can’t stand the sight of it’. Many of us see this
attitude ‘we must silence the Israelis at all costs’ (an extreme version of
BDS) – as hysterical. It’s partly a pathological fear of an imaginary, creeping
‘normalisation’ of the BBC’s relations with Israel. Oh the horror! But I don’t
believe it’s even that.

I think the complainant
is demanding that implied 'justification' is attached to all reports of murderous
activities by Palestinian Arabs, and thinks every report should include a list
of their grievances and so on.

He wants it embedded in
the BBC’s armoury of ‘background and context’ in the same way that the
notoriously misleading 'death tally' is appended to most of the BBC’s articles
concerning the Israeli/Palestinian situation. It serves to remind readers that
the BBC regards Israel’s defensive actions against Hamas as disproportionate.

Anti-Israel campaigners
and activists try to justify Palestinian violence by giving it context and
background. They cite unsubstantiated
rumours about al-Aksa, the occupation, the settlements, oppression,
frustration, no-hope and so on, as the ‘root cause’ of the violence.
Journalists throughout the UK media, including the BBC, seem to find this
understandable.

Let’s just suppose, for
one moment, that these factors were, in isolation, the ‘root cause’. So what
would that mean? Would that justify the actions of every
violent offender who lashes out with a knife or mows people down with his
vehicle if he feels he’s been handed a raw deal in life?

Or is it exclusively
applicable to Palestinians who are caught trying to hack people to shreds.

But if you’re going to
appease the likes of William Parry and demand that Palestinian violence is
rationalised and excused every time it’s reported, then you can’t be selective.
You can’t pick n mix your root causes. You can’t ignore the incitement from the
Palestinian leadership that has played a major role in whipping it up. But more
than that. You can’t ignore the real root cause.

Roger Bolton and Kevin
Connolly may well genuinely think that this long list of manufactured excuses
are behind the current wave of violence because neither of them care to know
that the Muslim Arabs’ hatred of Jews dates far back beyond the existence of
the Jewish State. That is the root cause.

“Free, free Palestine!”
simply means free of Jews “from the river to the sea”. What could be more clear?

The oldest hatred. A
hatred that is detrimental to everyone involved, especially the Palestinian
people.

Roger Bolton reading out
that ‘listener’s letter’ as if he was a typical listener and representative of
public opinion, might have been down to pure gullibility. It reminds me of the
time George Galloway was duped into reading out, passionately, on air, an
enthusiastic message from one “Hugh Janus”. Oh how we laughed.

5 comments:

But . I don't think any one has any understanding of how effective incitement can be in causing hatred and violence. These films illustrate eg http://israelbehindthenews.com/inside-unrwa-classroom/ and /or ​ http://israelbehindthenews.com/film-iran-billions-for-terror-released-sept-11-2015/13610/

True, but the principle of free speech has to take precedence in my view. We need to be careful not to broaden out the definition of incitement so it can be used against rational peaceful people.

The best way to counter incitement to hatred and violence is to have a strong system of education and a strong free speech culture that means any ideologies that promote hatred and violence can be pulled apart. We don't have that in the UK at the present.

The problem is that once rational peaceful people have been incited they are imbued with hate. It has to be prevented before it has taken root !! The concept of freedom of speech is taken too far eg when the BBC's Malcolm Balen wrote to me that Jenny Tonge's views "had to be tested in a democracy" . (Jenny Tonge had justified the Palestinian Arabs murdering Jews by homicide bombing and radio 4 BBC Today programme sponsored a trip to Israel for her ) BUT there can be NO justification for murder to solve problems and there should be no freedom of speech to promote this idea. The BBC also promoted a rap artist's CD giving him air time to make his anarchist views acceptable see http://netanyalynette.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/legitmacy-to-incitement-by-extremist.html There are other examples. freedom of speech sounds good in principle but when it is used as an excuse to promote views that support terrorists and anarchy than it is a danger to society. .

I don't agree. During the time of lethal IRA terrorism in London my friend's father had Irish rebel songs on albums in his home, inciting violence against the British (as no doubt did many thousands of recent immigrants from Ireland to mainland UK). I don't accept your view that it would have been a good idea to go and confiscate those records and subject the father to legal penalties.